Donald Trump threatens Amazon as payback for Washington Post articles he doesn't like

If you're going to dismantle the Constitution you may as well start with the first amendment.

Quote

Thursday night, speaking with friendly Fox News host Sean Hannity, Donald Trump outlined his theory that his presidential campaign attracts journalistic scrutiny from the Washington Post as part of a larger conspiracy to help Amazon avoid sales taxes and threatened to take revenge on the ecommerce giant if he is elected president.

Specifically, Hannity asked Trump about a report that the Post is assigning 20 reporters to dig into the various phases of his life, and whether he is prepared for the kind of scrutiny that comes with a presidential campaign.

Yeah — it's interesting that you say that, because every hour we're getting calls from reporters from the Washington Post asking ridiculous questions and I will tell you, this is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos who controls Amazon. Amazon is getting away with murder tax-wise. He's using The Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don't tax Amazon like they should be taxed. He's getting absolutely away, he's worried about me and I think he said that to somebody, it was in some article where he thinks I would go after him for antitrust because he's got a huge antitrust problem because he's controlling so much, Amazon is controlling so much of what they're doing and what they've done is he bought this paper for practically nothing and he's using that as a tool for political power against me and against other people and I'll tell you what, we can let him get away with it.

So he's got about 20-25. I just heard, they're taking these really bad stories, I mean they're wrong, I wouldn't even say bad, they're wrong and in many cases they have no proper information and they're putting them together, they're slopping them together and they're going to do a book and the book is going to be all false stuff up because the stories are so wrong and the reporters, I mean one after another. So what they're doing is — he's using that as a political instrument to try and stop antitrust; which he thinks I believe he's antitrust, another word's what he's got it's a monopoly and he wants to make sure I don't get in. So it's one of those things but I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what — what he's doing's wrong and the people are .... the whole system is rigged, you see a case like that, the whole system is rigged — whether it's Hillary or whether it's Bezos. He's using the Washington Post which is peanuts, he's using that for political purposes to save Amazon in terms of taxes and in terms of antitrust.

Bezo's strident efforts will run off the cliff like everyone else's efforts.

NBC and Univision are the ones who should be shuddering. They were the first ones to make a larger example out of someone like Trump, when beforehand such efforts at financial destruction were limited to cake bakers. BIG mistake.

If you're going to dismantle the Constitution you may as well start with the first amendment.

Click to expand...

I'm finding it difficult to feel sorry for Jeff Bezos, but, yes, Trump is threatening the First Amendment. Again. And, his loyal followers will love it I'm sure. I wonder what the Republican "establishment" will say-- the ones who are trying to convince themselves to support Trump.

Sad but true, the days of Walter Cronkite are long gone, replaced by cable networks and social media channels where news flies in so fast that there's no time to absorb and digest it. It's a different world now, sonny (in my really old man voice).

I'm finding it difficult to feel sorry for Jeff Bezos, but, yes, Trump is threatening the First Amendment. Again. And, his loyal followers will love it I'm sure. I wonder what the Republican "establishment" will say-- the ones who are trying to convince themselves to support Trump.

If you're going to dismantle the Constitution you may as well start with the first amendment.

Click to expand...

This is as outrageous as it would be if Obama was using the IRS to go after his political enemies! Of course that could never happen because the zealots on the Left, such as the OP, would never let such an immoral act occur.

It is interesting that the WaPo hasn't told the public about the team of reporters looking into Hillary's shadowy nooks and crannies <shudder>. I'm sure they've been assigned, the WaPo just forgot to mention them.

I for one do not agree that injurious slander should be considered a 1rst amendment right.
Opinions are one thing, falsifying facts another.

Click to expand...

First, injurious slander simply means that you have been defamed and the action hurt you. This is already codified in current law, but you're asking for a lower standard that would allow for damages if the statement was wrong and hurt you.

But, U.S. law holds a higher standard, which is "actual malice." This means that the person knew the statement was untrue, or was reckless with the truth, based on the 1964 SCOTUS decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.

Quote

....What about hate speech? one ideology pushing to make "hate speech" illegal, is definitely crossing the line of the 1rst amendment.

Click to expand...

First, it's interesting to see Trump supporters—and apparent 'conservatives' suddenly in for "hate speech"— but "hate speech" falls under a different set of rules, which are built on the idea that such speech constitutes "fighting words" and that this speech can incite violence or constitute a direct threat. And, the courts have often held that a public person—like the President and Donald Trump—have a higher bar when it comes to attacking speech.

Quote

...Holding news agencies accountable for lies would be a good thing, promoting investigative news based on facts not propaganda.

Click to expand...

Years ago, conservatives were allergic to a government body holding such sway over a news agency. And, for good reason, can we imagine how Fox News would do in the 9th Circuit Court? That alone is a dangerous set of precedents that I'd fight against tooth and nail.

This is as outrageous as it would be if Obama was using the IRS to go after his political enemies! Of course that could never happen because the zealots on the Left, such as the OP, would never let such an immoral act occur.

Click to expand...

The usual hypocrisy. I argue that there's no proof that Obama ordered the IRS to do this, but it's still wrong. You argue that it's wrong only when it hurts your friends.

If you're going to dismantle the Constitution you may as well start with the first amendment.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember some dude named Obama saying similar things about Fox News and Talk Radio, so spare us the phony outrage.

Let us know when you come to terms with the IRS targeting that actually did happen, not some hypothetical comment that's nothing more than a call to arms for people to protest a bunch of media slime balls.

This is as outrageous as it would be if Obama was using the IRS to go after his political enemies! Of course that could never happen because the zealots on the Left, such as the OP, would never let such an immoral act occur.

It is interesting that the WaPo hasn't told the public about the team of reporters looking into Hillary's shadowy nooks and crannies <shudder>. I'm sure they've been assigned, the WaPo just forgot to mention them.

First, injurious slander simply means that you have been defamed and the action hurt you. This is already codified in current law, but you're asking for a lower standard that would allow for damages if the statement was wrong and hurt you.

But, U.S. law holds a higher standard, which is "actual malice." This means that the person knew the statement was untrue, or was reckless with the truth, based on the 1964 SCOTUS decision in New York Times v. Sullivan.

First, it's interesting to see Trump supporters—and apparent 'conservatives' suddenly in for "hate speech"— but "hate speech" falls under a different set of rules, which are built on the idea that such speech constitutes "fighting words" and that this speech can incite violence or constitute a direct threat. And, the courts have often held that a public person—like the President and Donald Trump—have a higher bar when it comes to attacking speech.

Years ago, conservatives were allergic to a government body holding such sway over a news agency. And, for good reason, can we imagine how Fox News would do in the 9th Circuit Court? That alone is a dangerous set of precedents that I'd fight against tooth and nail.

The usual hypocrisy. I argue that there's no proof that Obama ordered the IRS to do this, but it's still wrong. You argue that it's wrong only when it hurts your friends.

I find this story endlessly hilarious.

Click to expand...

Only people in complete denial don't think Obama knew nothing about the IRS. Nobody farts on the left without Obama knowing.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.